Radiocarbon, Vol 56, Nr 2, 2014, p 451459


2014 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona

DOI: 10.2458/56.17038

PUZZLING RADIOCARBON DATES FOR THE UPPER PALEOLITHIC SITE OF SUNGIR

(CENTRAL RUSSIAN PLAIN)
Yaroslav V Kuzmin1 Johannes van der Plicht2 Leopold D Sulerzhitsky3
ABSTRACT. A summary is presented of more than a decade-long study of direct radiocarbon dating for one of the most
important human burials in Eurasia, the Sungir site in eastern Europe. Eighteen 14C dates were produced before early 2014
on three skeletons (Sungir 13), and there is still no consistency in the results. In the absence of other independent methods
to establish the antiquity of Sungir, a careful analysis is performed of the sites stratigraphy, paleoenvironment, and 14C dates
run on animal bones from the same layer as the burials. Although the conclusions of this work cannot be guaranteed to be
absolutely correct, we suggest that at the present stage of research the age range of ~26,00027,210 BP is the most probable
time for the creation of the elaborate human burials at the Sungir site.

INTRODUCTION

The Sungir (aka Sunghir and Sungir) site in central Russia (5611N, 4030E; see Figure 1) contains unique human burials (e.g. Bahder 1967; Bahn 2001:4289). Archaeologically, the site belongs to the middle stage of the Upper Paleolithic. Since the 1990s, several campaigns have been
carried out in order to establish the age of the Sungir human remains by direct accelerator mass
spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating of bone collagen (Pettitt and Bader 2000; Kuzmin et al.
2004; Dobrovolskaya et al. 2012; Marom et al. 2012). However, distinct discrepancies were recognized after the first two studies (Pettitt and Bader 2000 vs. Kuzmin et al. 2004), and their cause
remained unclear (see Kuzmin et al. 2004:733). This article reports new direct AMS 14C dates on
Sungir human burials. This study critically analyzes the entire corpus of information, including the
stratigraphy and other 14C dates from Sungir, in an attempt to understand the puzzling situation when
14
C dates produced on the same skeleton in different laboratories are several thousand years apart.
MATERIAL AND METHODS

The best-preserved human burials from the Sungir complex (which includes both a burial ground
and an occupation site; see NO Bader 1998) are Sungir 1, 2, and 3 (S-1, S-2, and S-3, respectively).
They were the subject of intensive archaeological, anthropological, and isotope analyses (e.g. NO
Bader 1998; Alekseeva and Bader 2000). The first direct AMS 14C dates were published by Pettitt
and Bader (2000), followed by Kuzmin et al. (2004), and more recently by Marom et al. (2012) and
Dobrovolskaya et al. (2012). Other 14C dates were produced on animal bones (Sulerzhitsky et al.
2000) and charcoal from the cultural layer of Sungir. It should be noted that some of the first 14C
values from Sungir, 24,430 400 BP (GrN-5446) on reindeer bones, and 25,500 200 BP (GrN5425) on charcoal, were run in the late 1960s at the University of Groningen (Vogel and Waterbolk
1972:65).
Several techniques of collagen extraction and purification were applied to the human bones from Sungir by various laboratories: dissolution in cold HCl (University of Arizona, lab code AA); improved
Longin (1971) method (University of Groningen, lab code GrA); gelatinization (some of the University of Oxford dates, lab code OxA); ultrafiltration (some of the OxA values; and dates from Kiel
1. Institute of Geology and Mineralogy, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk 630090,
Russia. Corresponding author. E-mail: kuzmin@fulbrightmail.org.
2. Center for Isotope Research, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; and Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden
University, Leiden, the Netherlands.
3. Geological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 199034, Russia (deceased).

Proceedings of the Radiocarbon and Archaeology 7th International Symposium

Ghent, Belgium, April 2013 | Edited by Mark Van Strydonck, Philippe Cromb, and Guy De Mulder
2014 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona

452

Y V Kuzmin et al.

Figure 1 Location of the Sungir site on the Russian Plain

University, lab code KIA); and specific compound extraction (hydroxyproline; Oxford-produced, lab
code OxX). Details about the dating techniques can be found in the relevant publications (Zenin et al.
2000; Kuzmin et al. 2004; Brock et al. 2010; Dobrovolskaya et al. 2012; Marom et al. 2012).
Dobrovolskaya et al. (2012:99) mentioned that for the collagen used in the Arizona series ... pretreatment, however, did not include any gelatinization or filtration steps. Although no filtration was
done, gelatinization was performed as is clearly indicated (see Kuzmin et al. 2004:732). Earlier,
Sulerzhitsky (1997:1856) described his technique of collagen extraction, and reported the collagen
dissolution in weak acidic water at 100C, i.e. the gelatinization process. Thus, the Arizona samples
were pretreated using the current methodological level; therefore, they are considered reliable.
After recognizing the obvious discrepancies between the data generated by Pettitt and Bader (2000)
and Kuzmin et al. (2004), we were able to obtain additional samples from the Sungir burials, which
supposedly were not treated with preservatives, although we do not have documentation that could
confirm this. Three samples were 14C dated at the University of Groningen in 20042007. A fragment of vertebra belonging to the S-1 skeleton accidentally was broken into two pieces, and it was
decided to date them separately. For the S-1 and S-2 skeletons, collagen was extracted using the
improved Longin method (e.g. Zenin et al. 2000:746). One sample of carbonized collagen from the
S-3 skeleton (5 mg weight), originally measured at the Arizona laboratory (Kuzmin et al. 2004),
was remeasured.
Data on the 14C dates on charcoal and animal bones from the Sungir complex (Sulerzhitsky et al.
2000), and the sites stratigraphy and paleoenvironment (NO Bader 1998; Alekseeva and Bader
2000), was also taken into account. Unfortunately, this information is not well known outside of
Russia; only recently some of it was published in English (Dobrovolskaya et al. 2012).

Puzzling 14C Dates for Upper Paleolithic Site of Sungir

453

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

All the direct AMS 14C values for the Sungir humans published to date (early 2014) are summarized
in Table 1. The new Groningen dates are as follows: for the S-1 grave, two subsamples of a vertebra
fragment gave very different results of ~26,300 BP (GrA-21507) and ~21,310 BP (GrA-21513). The
double grave with skeletons S-2 and S-3 was dated to ~24,170 BP (S-3) and 26,190 BP (S-2). The
Groningen samples show good quality parameters (see Table 2) in terms of the carbon content of
the collagen (37.240.4%) and the 13C values (e.g. Mook and Streurman 1983). The 15N and C:N
values for the GrA-34760 specimen are also good, and the C:N ratio is within the acceptable range
(~2.93.6; e.g. DeNiro 1985).
The reason for the large difference between the two subsamples of S-1 is unclear. It is noticeable
that the younger value (GrA-21513) has a very low collagen yield, less than 0.1% (Table 2), which
makes it insecure (e.g. Brock et al. 2012). Examples of very diverse collagen yields for the same
individual are known: for example, the Kennewick skeleton (e.g. Taylor and Southon 2012:985).
Another possible explanation is the uneven contamination by conservant matter. Therefore, the
GrA-21513 value can be discarded as unreliable. The GrA-28182 value obtained on the same sample as AA-36476 is perhaps slightly younger than it should be, and should also be excluded.
A critical evaluation of the Sungir series of AMS 14C dates is necessary in an attempt to understand
their age. In order to do this, the following circumstances should be taken into account: (1) the
stratigraphic situation (e.g. ON Bader 1998), which shows that both burials and items from the
occupation zone of Sungir (artifacts and animal bones) belong to the cultural stratum ~80 cm thick
(see Figure 2), and the ages of the burials and the occupation site should to a large extent be contemporaneous; (2) the Sungir site existed before the Last Glacial Maximum (~16,00022,000 BP, or
~19,00026,000 cal BP; see Clark et al. 2009) because the S-1 burial is disturbed by an ice wedge
(see Figure 2), and the site was partly destroyed by solifluction; and (3) the S-2 and S-3 skeletons
from the double grave should have identical 14C dates.
There are 22 14C dates from the cultural layer of the Sungir site run on animal bones obtained from
the excavations between 1958 and 1995; for most of them, the exact provenance is known (Sulerzhitsky et al. 2000:30). These bones were usually not treated with any preservatives. The 14C values
range between ~20,360 and ~28,800 BP, and 19 dates are in the range ~26,30028,800 BP (see also
Dobrovolskaya et al. 2012:98). Dates from the lower part of the Sungir cultural layer (horizons 34)
are ~27,200 BP (GIN-9586) and ~27,460 BP (OxA-9039). Bones were collected from controlled
excavations (Sulerzhitsky et al. 2000:32), and can serve as the lower limit of the Sungir chronology.
The calendar age range for these bones is ~30,88032,790 cal BP (Figure 3).
There are also nine older 14C values (~27,63028,800 BP) run on mammoth bones, but they may well
reflect scavenging of subfossil bone material, which was widely practiced in the Upper Paleolithic
of the Russian Plain (e.g. Soffer 1993; Praslov and Soulerjytsky 1997; Praslov and Sulerzhitsky
1999). In this case, bones of smaller animals representing a common prey of the hunter-gatherers
are closely related to the time of the sites existence; five values run on horse and reindeer bones are
~25,70027,400 BP (Sulerzhitsky et al. 2000).
Marom et al. (2012:6880) stated that they obtained a sample of mammoth bone that came from the
same occupation area of the site as the burials. This, however, is incorrect. The new OxX-2395-8 date
(30,100 400 BP) is run on the same piece of mammoth bone as the previous OxA-9039 date (see
Marom et al. 2012). In a primary source, it is indicated that the bone was collected in 1995 from
Excavation Pit III, grid S/157 (Sulerzhitsky et al. 2000). Pettitt and Bader (2000:207) described it

23,830 220
27,210 710
26,200 640
30,100 550
25,020 120
26,190 120

24,100 240
26,190 640
25,430 160
24,830 110
30,000 550
26,000 410
24,170 + 120/130

S-2b
S-2
S-2
S-2b
S-2b
S-2

S-3c
S-3d
S-3c
S-3c
S-3c
S-3
S-3d

OxA-9038
AA-36476
OxA-15751
OxA-15754
OxX-2395-7e
KIA-27007
GrA-28182

OxA-9037
AA-36474
AA-36475
OxX-2395-6e
OxA-15753
GrA-34760

OxA-9036
AA-36473
KIA-27006
GrA-21507
GrA-21513

Lab code

28,40029,460
29,55031,560
29,65030,620
29,42030,160
33,21036,210
29,78031,260
28,53029,390

28,08029,280
30,39033,140
29,56031,570
33,31036,240
29,52030,240
30,61031,150

26,88028,250
22,25023,650
31,09031,590
30,54031,240
24,82026,190

Calendar age, cal BP*

Tibia$
Rib
Tibia
Tibia
Tibia
Humerus
Rib

Tibia$
Rib (right)
Rib (left)
Tibia
Tibia
Tibia

Tibia$
Vertebra
Femur
Vertebra
Vertebra

Skeleton Part

Pettitt and Bader (2000)

Kuzmin et al. (2004)
Marom et al. (2012)
Marom et al. (2012)
Marom et al. (2012)
Dobrovolskaya et al. (2012)
This paper

Pettitt and Bader (2000)

Kuzmin et al. (2004)
Kuzmin et al. (2004)
Marom et al. (2012)
Marom et al. (2012)
This paper

Pettitt and Bader (2000)

Kuzmin et al. (2004)
Dobrovolskaya et al. (2012)
This paper
This paper

Reference

*Calibrated using the IntCal09 data set (Reimer et al. 2009) and CALIB 6.1.1 software (Stuiver and Reimer 1993); 2, with all possible intervals rounded to the next 10 yr and
combined.
$
For indication of bone, see Sulerzhitsky et al. (2000).

Ultrafiltered collagen was dated.

a
The same sample was dated.
b
The same specimen was dated (see Marom et al. 2012).
c
The same specimen was dated (see Marom et al. 2012).
d
The same sample of carbonized collagen was dated.
e
Hydroxyproline fraction of bone collagen was dated.

22,930 200
19,160 270
27,050 210
26,300 + 220/230
21,310 + 240/250

S-1
S-1
S-1
S-1a
S-1a

C date, yr BP

14

Skeleton

Table 1 List of direct 14C dates on humans from the Sungir site (20002012).

454
Y V Kuzmin et al.

Puzzling 14C Dates for Upper Paleolithic Site of Sungir

455

Table 2 Characteristics of collagen of the Sungir 13 burials (after Pettitt and Bader 2000;
Richards et al. 2001; Kuzmin et al. 2004; Marom et al. 2012; Dobrovolskaya et al. 2012; see
Table 1). A long dash means that information does not exist or is not available.
Skeleton

14

13C,

15N,

C:N ratio

Collagen yield, %

S-1

OxA-9036
AA-36473
KIA-27006
GrA-21507
GrA-21513
OxA-9037
AA-36474
AA-36475
OxX-2395-6

19.2
20.0a
19.5
19.8
19.2
19.0
19.3a
19.7a

19.9
18.9
19.7a

19.6
19.8a

11.3

10.7

11.2

11.1
11.3

11.0

3.1

3.5

5.0c
3.3
3.1
3.4

3.2
3.2
5.1c
3.5

0.6
<0.1
6.0b

9.5b
9.5b
5.4
6.1b

3.4b
3.4b
3.4b

S-2

C date

OxA-15753

S-3

GrA-34760
OxA-9038
AA-36476d
OxA-15751
OxA-15754
OxX-2395-7
KIA-27007
GrA-28182d

The 13C values of carbonized collagen (see Kuzmin et al. 2004) were measured.
It is not clearly stated that these values belong to the OxA-9037 and OxA-9038 samples, but we assume that these
are specimens processed with the gelatinization method while others are ultrafiltered samples (Marom et al. 2012,
Supporting Information, Table S2; see also Marom et al. 2012:6879).
c
These are normal values for hydroxyproline fraction (see Marom et al. 2012:6879).
d
This is sample of carbonized collagen, which is why the collagen yield is unknown.
a

as the main cultural accumulation at the site, which means the occupation area within the cultural
layer and not the burial ground. On the general excavation plans (ON Bader 1998:8; Bader and
Mikhailova 1998:168), the 1995 pit where the mammoth bone was collected is situated about 65
m away from the burials. That is why the identical age of the mammoth bone and the S-2 and S-3
skeletons (see Marom et al. 2012) is not a convincing argument in favor of the superior reliability
of the hydroxyproline-based 14C dates compared to other age determinations of the Sungir humans.
The majority of the Sungir faunal remains belong to reindeer (Alekseeva 1998). It seems that the site
was situated near a ford where animals crossed the river (paleo-Klyazma), and human occupation
might have continued for several millennia (although with frequent interruptions) as the wide range
of 14C dates from the site demonstrates (Sulerzhitsky et al. 2000; Sulerzhitsky 2004). Bones of reindeer at Sungir are 14C dated to ~26,90027,360 BP (Sulerzhitsky et al. 2000; see also Dobrovolskaya
et al. 2012 where they are indicated as deer).
The charcoal dated to ~21,80022,500 BP, and supposedly collected from below the human bones,
was previously associated with the S-1 skeleton (Sulerzhitsky et al. 2000; Kuzmin et al. 2004;
Dobrovolskaya et al. 2012). The controversy between these 14C dates and the majority of direct
14
C ages for S-1 requires an analysis. Careful study of earlier sources has shown the following: ON
Bader (1998:3243) indicated that the S-1 burial was found in August 1964, and in the same year

456

Y V Kuzmin et al.

Figure 2 Stratigraphy of the Sungir 1 burial (after ON Bader

1998, with additions): 1 modern soil; 2 colluvial loam with
paleosol (at a depth of ~1 m below surface); 3 Bryansk paleosol containing the cultural layer, with both occupation zone
and graves, and with solifluction structures; 4 sandy loam below burial; 5 grave pit infill; 6 ice wedge.

it was taken to Moscow for final cleaning and conservation. Random small pieces of charcoal were
detected at the bottom of the grave pit below the S-1 skeleton; some larger charcoal fragments were
found above the bottom in direct association with human bones (ON Bader 1998:40).
However, 14C dating of these pieces was not conducted. In the original report (Cherdyntsev et al.
1969:184), it is clearly stated that charcoal was collected in 1967 only from the hearth in the cultural
layer by NV Kind (date of 21,800 1000 BP; GIN-326a) and by ON Bader (date of 22,500 600 BP;
GIN-326b) (see also Bader 1978:64). Therefore, it would have been impossible to obtain the charcoal from the S-1 burial in 1967 because it had been completely excavated in 1964. This made

Puzzling 14C Dates for Upper Paleolithic Site of Sungir

457

Figure 3 Calendar ages of the Sungir skeletons (see Table 1)

it feasible to reject the association between these charcoal 14C values from the cultural layer and
the S-1 burial. From now on, they should be removed from the corpus of 14C dates related to the
Sungir burials. Based on this conclusion, the AA-36473 and OxA-9036 dates for the S-1 skeleton
(~19,16022,930 BP) appear to be too young (Figure 3).
The issue of contamination for the Sungir human bones was recently raised by Marom et al. (2012).
During the excavations in the 1960s, bones were treated with a butyral solution in ethanol for conservation (ON Bader 1998:138). Marom et al. (2012, Supporting Information, p 2) also mention
polymer comprising tree sap (termed kanefol), polyvinylbutyral, and phenol/formaldehyde, mixed
together with ethanol as a conservant matter. These compounds might be responsible for the discrepancies observed in the series of 14C dates (e.g. Marom et al. 2012). However, butyral and other
similar chemicals were usually produced in the former USSR from a 14C-free fossil raw material
(PaleozoicMesozoic oil), and it is less likely that some young 14C was introduced during the
conservation process; nevertheless, such a possibility remains.
Based on the evidence presented, the KIA-27006 and GrA-21507 values are the most reliable age
estimates of the S-1 burial: ~26,30027,050 BP. Their calibrated ages are ~30,54031,590 cal BP,
overlapping at 2 (Table 1). Concerning the S-2 skeleton, the GrA-34760 value is the closest to
the S-1 values, corresponding to ~30,61031,150 cal BP (Figure 3). The AA-36474 and AA-36475
values are close to it, although due to the larger standard deviations their calendar ages are wider,
~29,56033,140 cal BP (Table 1). Among the S-3 dates, the AA-36476 and KIA-27007 values are
the closest to the S-2 ages (Figure 3); their calendar range is ~29,55031,560 cal BP. The narrowest
possible interval for all 3 skeletons from Sungir could be ~30,54031,590 cal BP. This is in good
agreement with other 14C records, and the stratigraphic data.

458

Y V Kuzmin et al.

The statement by Marom et al. (2012:6880), In the case of Sungir and Kostenki the direct radiocarbon dates previously obtained are erroneous and should henceforth be set out to one side by
prehistorians, in our opinion is an exaggeration. As has been demonstrated above, the hydroxyproline-based 14C dates of ~30,00030,100 BP for Sungir (Marom et al. 2012) contradict the available
evidence on the chronology of this site complex (see Figure 3).
CONCLUSIONS

The true age of the Sungir humans is still unknown. This is partly due to a situation where researchers lack chronological markers like the Campanian Ignimbrite at the Kostenki cluster (e.g. Sinitsyn
and Hoffecker 2006) to cross-check the age of a site independently. Based on analysis of the existing 14C and other records, the most probable age range for the S-1 to S-3 skeletons is ~26,000
27,210BP (calendar ages as narrow as ~30,54031,590 cal BP, and as wide as ~29,78033,140 cal
BP). Without a new chronometric study of the Sungir skeletons, including collagen quality control
at the modern level of research and chemical identification of possible contaminants, it will be impossible to solve this puzzle.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to Dr Maria M Pevzner (Geological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences,

Moscow) for providing information for some of the Sungir samples. We acknowledge Prof Nikolai
O Bader (Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow) for important comments on stratigraphy of the Sungir site. Dr Susan G Keates (Dsseldorf, Germany) kindly checked
the grammar of the earlier version of this paper and gave some useful suggestions, and we are thankful for that. Finally, we are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their comments.
REFERENCES
Alekseeva LI. 1998. Okhotnichya fauna stoyanki Sungir [The prey fauna of the Sungir site]. In: Bader
NO, editor. Pozdnepaleoliticheskoe Poselenie Sungir (Pogrebeniya i Prirodnaya Sreda). Moscow:
Nauchny Mir Publishers. p 24057. In Russian.
Alekseeva TI, Bader NO, editors. 2000. Homo sungirensis. Upper Palaeolithic Man: Ecological and
Evolutionary Aspects of the Investigation. Moscow:
Nauchny Mir Publishers. 468 p. In Russian with English abstract.
Bader NO, editor. 1998. Pozdnepaleoliticheskoe Poselenie Sungir (Pogrebeniya i Prirodnaya Sreda). Moscow: Nauchny Mir Publishers. 270 p. In Russian.
Bader NO, Mikhailova LA. 1998. Kulturny sloi poseleniya Sungir po raskopkam 19871995 godov [The
cultural layer of the Sungir settlement according
to the 19871995 excavations]. In: Bader NO,
editor. Pozdnepaleoliticheskoe Poselenie Sungir (Pogrebeniya i Prirodnaya Sreda). Moscow:
Nauchny Mir Publishers. p 16588. In Russian.
Bader ON. 1978. Sungir. Verkhnepaleoliticheskaya Stoyanka [Sungir. An Upper Paleolithic Site]. Moscow:
Nauka Publishers. 271 p. In Russian.
Bader ON. 1998. Sungir. Paleoliticheskie porgebeniya [The Sungir site. Paleolithic burials]. In: Bader
NO, editor. Pozdnepaleoliticheskoe Poselenie Sungir (Pogrebeniya i Prirodnaya Sreda). Moscow:
Nauchny Mir Publishers. p 5158. In Russian.
Bahder ON. 1967. Eine ungewhnliche palolitische

Bestattung in Mittelruland. Quartr 18:1914.

Bahn P, editor. 2001. The Penguin Archaeology Guide.
London: Penguin Books. 494 p.
Brock F, Higham T, Ditchfield P, Bronk Ramsey C. 2010.
Current pretreatment methods for AMS radiocarbon
dating at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit
(ORAU). Radiocarbon 52(1):10312.
Brock F, Wood R, Higham TFG, Ditchfield P, Bayliss
A, Bronk Ramsey C. 2012. Reliability of nitrogen
content (%N) and carbon:nitrogen atomic ratios
(C:N) as indicators of collagen preservation suitable for radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 54(3
4):87986.
Cherdyntsev VV, Zavelsky FS, Kind NV, Sulerzhitsky
LD, Forova VS. 1969. Radiouglerodnye daty GIN
AN SSSR. Soobshchenie IV [Radiocarbon dates
of the Geological Institute, USSR Academy of Sciences. Report IV]. Bulleten Komissii po Izucheniyu
Chetvertichnogo Perioda 36:17293. In Russian.
Clark PU, Dyke AS, Shakun JD, Carlson AE, Clark J,
Wohlfarth B, Mitrovica JX, Hostetler SW, McCabe
AM. 2009. The Last Glacial Maximum. Science
325(5941):7104.
DeNiro M. 1985. Postmortem preservation and alteration of in vivo bone collagen isotope ratios in
relation to palaeodietary reconstruction. Nature
317(6040):8069.
Dobrovolskaya M, Richards MP, Trinkaus E. 2012. Direct radiocarbon dates for the mid Upper Paleolithic

Puzzling 14C Dates for Upper Paleolithic Site of Sungir

(eastern Gravettian) burials from Sunghir, Russia.
Bulletins et Mmoires de la Socit dAnthropologie
de Paris 24:96102.
Kuzmin YV, Burr GS, Jull AJT, Sulerzhitsky LD. 2004.
AMS 14C age of the Upper Palaeolithic skeletons
from Sungir site, Central Russian Plain. Nuclear
Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B
223224:7314.
Longin R. 1971. New method of collagen extraction for
radiocarbon dating. Nature 230(5291):2412.
Marom A, McCullagh JSO, Higham TFG, Sinitsyn AA,
Hedges REM. 2012. Single amino acid radiocarbon
dating of Upper Paleolithic modern humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
USA 109(18):687881.
Mook WG, Streurman HJ. 1983. Physical and chemical
aspects of radiocarbon dating. In: Mook WG, Waterbolk HT, editors. Proceedings of the First International Symposium 14C and Archaeology, Groningen,
1981. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. p 3155.
Pettitt PB, Bader NO. 2000. Direct AMS radiocarbon
dates for the Sungir mid Upper Palaeolithic burials.
Antiquity 74(284):26970.
Praslov ND, Soulerjytsky LD. 1997. De nouvelles donnes chronologiques pour le Palolithique de Kostienki-sur-Don. Prhistoire Europenne 11:13343.
Praslov ND, Sulerzhitsky LD. 1999. New data on the
chronology of Paleolithic sites in Kostenki-on-Don.
Doklady Earth Sciences 365(2):196200.
Reimer PJ, Baillie MGL, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW,
Blackwell PG, Bronk Ramsey C, Buck CE, Burr
GS, Edwards RL, Friedrich M, Grootes PM, Guilderson TP, Hajdas I, Heaton TJ, Hogg AG, Hughen
KA, Kaiser KF, Kromer B, McCormac FG, Manning
SW, Reimer RW, Richards DA, Southon JR, Talamo
S, Turney CSM, van der Plicht J, Weyhenmeyer CE.
2009. IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 050,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon
51(4):111150.
Richards MP, Pettitt PB, Stiner MC, Trinkaus E. 2001.
Stable isotope evidence for increasing dietary
breadth in the European mid-Upper Paleolithic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
USA 98(11):652832.
Sinitsyn AA, Hoffecker JF. 2006. Radiocarbon dating
and chronology of the Early Upper Paleolithic at
Kostenki. Quaternary International 152153:175
85.
Soffer O. 1993. Upper Palaeolithic adaptations in

459

Central and Eastern Europe and manmammoth

interactions. In: Soffer O, Praslov ND, editors.
From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Palaeolithic Paleo-Indian Adaptations. New York: Plenum Press.
p 3149.
Stuiver M, Reimer PJ. 1993. Extended 14C data base and
revised CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration program. Radiocarbon 35(1):21530.
Sulerzhitsky LD. 1997. Cherty radiouglerodnoi khronologii mamontov Sibiri i severa Vostochnoi Evropy (kak substrata dlya rasseleniya cheloveka) [The
features of radiocarbon chronology of mammoths in
Siberia and northern Eastern Europe (as substratum
for human dispersal)]. In: Velichko AA, Soffer O,
editors. Chelovek Zaselyaet Planetu Zemlya. Moscow: Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of
Sciences. p 184202. In Russian.
Sulerzhitsky LD. 2004. The chronological span of some
Late Palaeolithic sites according to the radiocarbon dating of the bones of megafauna. Rossiiskaya
Arkheologiya 3:10312. In Russian with English
abstract.
Sulerzhitsky LD, Pettitt P, Bader NO. 2000. Radiocarbon dates of the remains from the settlement Sunghir. In: Alekseeva TI, Bader NO, editors. Homo sungirensis. Upper Palaeolithic Man: Ecological and
Evolutionary Aspects of the Investigation. Moscow:
Nauchny Mir Publishers. p 304. In Russian with
English abstract.
Taylor RE, Southon J. 2012. On the resolution of 14C dating anomalies: case studies from New World archaeology. Radiocarbon 54(34):97991.
Velichko AA, Faustova MA, Pisareva VV, Gribchenko YN, Sudakova NG, Lavrentiev NV. 2011. Glaciations of the East European Plain: distribution
and chronology. In: Ehlers J, Gibbard PL, Hughes
PD, editors. Quaternary Glaciations Extent and
Chronology: A Closer Look. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
p33759.
Vogel J, Waterbolk HT. 1972. Groningen radiocarbon
dates X. Radiocarbon 14(1):6110.
Zenin VN, van der Plicht J, Orlova LA, Kuzmin YV.
2000. AMS 14C chronology of woolly mammoth
(Mammuthus primigenius Blum.) remains from the
Shestakovo Upper Paleolithic site, Western Siberia:
timing of human-mammoth interaction. Nuclear
Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B
172(14):74550.